William Brock opined in the pages of the Moscow / Pullman Daily News...

Independence Day is fast approaching, so if you're not robotically igniting fireworks, this might be a good time to reflect on life in these United States.

According to some participants of Saturday's Taxed Enough Already (TEA) rally in Pullman, Americans are losing their grasp on liberty, the Constitution and our system of free enterprise.

"People need to know what's going on and how close we are to being a socialized country," one TEA Party participant told the Daily News.

Maybe she was talking about Medicare, or Medicaid, or that money-for-nothing retirement program known as Social Security. Or maybe not. But c'mon, is life in the U.S.A., as we know it, really in jeopardy?

I spent some time behind the Iron Curtain in 1981, long before the Soviet Union imploded, so I have an inkling of what actual socialism looks like. Trust me, capitalist enterprise in contemporary America is in no danger of being eclipsed by socialism.

Granted, these are hard economic times, but our national cup is well over half full. It's not overflowing like it was three years ago, but many Americans can quench their thirst for the good life. Ask around in Bulgaria and you'll find most folks are still coming up dry.

I applaud the TEA Party people for their civic engagement, but there's a Rip Van Winkle quality to their sudden activism.

If they're so concerned about fiscal responsibility in government, then where were they during the golden fleece years from 2000 through 2006? That's when Congress, ostensibly controlled by the party of fiscal restraint, kept handing blank checks to a president who ran up the tab like no one else in American history.

Where were the TEA Party people when America's foray into Iraq - originally billed as revenue-neutral thanks to oil sales - began incinerating hundreds of billions of our tax dollars?

Where were the TEA Party people when lack of financial oversight finally caught up with, and hobbled, America's once-robust economy? My retirement savings took a sickening dive when Wall Street tanked, and I'll bet yours did too.

Our TEA Party pals doubtless were delighted with the 43rd president's zeal for tax cuts. Most wage earners on the Palouse saw their taxes go down by a few hundred bucks. It was welcome, but it also was a penny-wise, pound-foolish way to squander the federal surplus that accumulated during the late 1990s.

Those tax cuts were great for seriously wealthy people, but not for you, or me, or anyone who punches a time clock.

And now, thanks to dubious leadership, America is deeply in debt. The interest we're paying on that debt is money that could have been spent to reduce health care costs, or college tuition, or some other social good.

Instead, we're spending it on debt service. The lost opportunity costs are similar to those resulting from credit card debt - you can't afford to buy a big-screen TV, and Uncle Sam can't afford to solve pressing social problems.

Our new president is trying to confront some of those problems. I wish him luck, but I'm withholding applause until I see change I can believe in.

He started off in a deep hole, with the economy in full retreat and expensive military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like the Cat in the Hat, he's juggling those challenges while simultaneously grappling with a difficult national issue: the high cost of health care.

Only now do the TEA Party people pipe up with their faux grass-roots activism. Their talking points - the same from Seattle to Miami - didn't bubble up from below, they were handed down from above. Just call the TV stations, wave a few signs and, presto, instant public indignation.

These folks were played like a fiddle by the last occupant of the Oval Office. As conservatives continue to lose the political high ground, the TEA Party "patriots" are being played yet again.

As an organizer and keynote speaker involved with both Pullman Tea Party Protests, I would describe William Brock’s editorial “Partiers finally wake up to Uncle Sam's debt.” to be a gross over-simplification of our efforts, marked by outright disinformation. 

It is ironic that while Brock claims our group is “faux grass-roots” and unfairly questions and derides the sincerity of our motives, the fact of the matter is that the only thing spouting partisan talking points is his own editorial.

The author reminds me of an annoying Amazon.com user who writes reviews for books that he has never read. He takes issue with our concerns over the growing specter of totalitarianism by claiming that “America is in no danger of being eclipsed by [it]” and he wisely comes to this conclusion because he “spent some time behind the Iron Curtain in 1981.”

What?

First, the Soviet Union in 1981 was not socialist. It was communist. As background, Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized power. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies  - policies that were never implemented.” (Source:  Encarta.) Sounds like Brock might not only be a partisan, but an “полезный идиот” as well. Hope you enjoyed your travels, Товарищ, but you’re comparing apples to oranges.

Regardless of what Brock might believe (feelings, not facts), we contend that totalitarianism in all of it’s forms is a bad thing, and a slippery slope that will ultimately destroy our nation. Our founders established a system of republican, limited government, and that foundation has been our driving strength for 233 years. The larger our government becomes, the more totalitarian it will be. Totalitarianism and liberty cannot coexist.

Nationalized industry and healthcare - combined with radical Cap and Trade proposals (Waxman-Markey, HR 2454) amount to nothing more than a significant takeover of the public sector, (as much as 35%, with punitive tax increases designed to control behavior on the remaining 65) and with dozens of additional legislative initiatives yet to come, every one of these massive programs are diminishing our basic constitutional rights. It was Benjamin Franklin who wrote “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Simply put, we agree.

Anyone can attempt to make the unfounded argument that we are simply an anti Obama group. But be forewarned, that kind of rhetoric is simply propaganda, and will discredit the person making the claim far more than it will our movement. There can be no argument that we take great issue with the proposed initiatives of the current administration. However, that’s simply because that unlike so many leftists, we clearly understand that getting on the stump and shredding the failed policies of the previous administration accomplishes nothing. We don’t own a time machine and we cannot change what was. We can only address those issues yet to be resolved. Not all problems lead back to Bush. At what point will the pundits disconnect from that tired argument and instead have an intellectually honest discussion about principles and values?

As to when some or all of us became involved in the movement, this is an irrelevant argument meant only to cast unnecessary aspersions. While I am more than happy to illustrate how Brock is wrong on the facts, I’m not going to waste time trying to ascribe a motive to his philosophy. Whenever an American citizen wakes up, decides to abandon the principles of party politics and exchange them for the concepts of freedom and liberty, it’s a good day. I can’t make this any clearer - we oppose any politician who would diminish our constitutionally enumerated inalienable rights. And that’s a fact.

2:00 PM: We're underway. Crowd of 50-60 present. Cathy announces that four year medical school in Spokane is under consideration, under auspices of UW.

2:05 PM: Momentary pause to seat overflow crowd, closer to 75 now.

2:11 PM: Cathy states that health care issue always comes up when she talks to constituents, especially access to care in rural areas.

2:16 PM: Cathy says she has three considerations on any proposed health care reform legislation:

1. Preserve the doctor-patient relationship.
2. Protect the quality of care. For example, the U.S. has the best breast cancer and prostate cancer survival rates in the world.
3. Address cost drivers, which have led to a growing number of uninsured.

She feels these issues can be addressed without turning them over to the federal government. Half of all uninsured are between ages 18-35. Need portable insurance for them. Small business owners and employees also lack coverage. Cathy supports association health plans to offer them more affordable options.

She also called for medical liability reform and investment in health IT. Wellness also needs to be encouraged, as 75% of health care costs come from five preventable diseases.

The controversial aspect of the bill before Congress is the public option that would reimburse at Medicare plus 5%. She feels this will make it very difficult to get a doctor and result in waiting lists. That's why she doesn't support the bill.

There would be a 8% tax on employers who don't offer insurance and 2% om individuals who don't have insuraance. Cathy asked if that is the right way to fund health care if people can't afford insurance now.

Bill would spend a trillion to a trillion and a half more in health care. She asked how do we address cost drivers and how do we pay for this.

2:37 PM: Some excellent discussion after Cathy's address. Some great points made about medical savings accounts and how that would make the patient into a consumer again and incentivize healhier living and smarter choices.

Tom Handy, a Pullman small business owner, brought up how this bill would cause him to reduce employment. Cathy said this issue needs to be addressed.

2:42 PM: Someone joked that this new health care plan needs to be tested in the federal government first.

Cathy concluded her remarks by saying that it seems that a cap has been put on the American Dream; that bureaucratic regulations and taxes have made it impossible for the American tradition of innovation and inguenity to continue.

Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers will be holding a town hall meeting on health care today at 2:00 PM at the SEL Event Center in Pullman. It is being sponsored by the Pullman Chamber of Commerce and is open to the public. I'll be there live blogging.

They're baaaaacckkkk:

Friends of the Clearwater, Center for Biological Diversity, Palouse Prairie Foundation, Palouse Audubon and Palouse Group of Sierra Club filed a petition today with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting that the agency protect the giant Palouse earthworm as an endangered species. The earthworm has been found only four times in the past 110 years, including in 2005, and is immediately threatened by agriculture, urban sprawl, and invasive earthworms.

Predictably, it's all Dubya's fault:

Under the Bush administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rejected a previous petition from the groups to protect the earthworm, arguing that there was not enough information about the species. This move was typical of the administration, which adamantly opposed protecting species under the Endangered Species Act. Indeed, the administration protected only 62 species in eight years, compared to 522 species protected under the Clinton administration. In submitting the new petition, the groups provided additional information demonstrating the extreme rarity of, and severe threats to, the species.

Actually, the original petition to list the giant Palouse earthworm as an endangered species was COMPLETELY LACKING IN ANY HARD SCIENTIFIC DATA.   No one has any clue how many giant Palouse earthworms there may be left.  They could all be gone or there could be billions.  No one has any idea where their habitat may be.  There is also absolutely no indication that man's activities have harmed them or that other earthworms introduced by man have caused a decline in their population.  A petition to list the giant Palouse unicorn or Bigfoot as endangered species would have virtually as much scientific merit.

But, of course, the real issue here is that Palouse leftist wackos want to stop all growth in the region.  The declining aquifer excuse has thus far failed to do it, so now they will invoke the heavy hand of the federal government to do it instead.  New car dealership?  New golf course?  New "sprawl mall?"  New "cookie cutter" housing development?  You can guarantee that our liberal fascists and their NIMBY allies will ensure the planned site is a critical habitat for the giant Palouse earthworm.

We're going to have to push back on this one HARD, folks. 

On Tuesday, June 30, the Pullman City Council announced it was considering utility rate increases; water rates could increase by as much as 8 percent annually, while sewer rates could increase by as much as 12.5 percent annually. This fee structure is roughly double the existing planned increases.

According to the Moscow Pullman Daily News, in an article published 7/1/09, the increased fees are needed “to pay for [multiple] infrastructure projects,” including an $11 million project to double the capacity of the Pullman wastewater treatment plant's aeration pond. Other projects include infrastructure maintenance and planned expansion of current systems.

According to the Public Works department, the fees to fund this project could result in overall increases of up to 40% for water and up to 80% for sewer over a five year period. In addition, storm water fee increases are coming, which will further increase out-of-pocket expenses for the citizens of Pullman. This gives me great pause.

As this process moves forward, we need to scrutinize these projects carefully. Those proposals for maintenance of aging infrastructure should be prioritized - if any of these systems were to fail, emergency repairs always cost more than planned maintenance, and the resulting work is of lower quality with less longevity. As such, emergency repairs are NOT an effective expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

Beyond planned maintenance, what projects must the city undertake because of unfunded mandates from other government agencies? Of those remaining projects, which are truly necessary, and which can be delayed until such time as we find ourselves on better financial footing?

Expanding the system to promote local growth may be a double edged sword. If we build out infrastructure to accommodate future growth that does not occur, then those dollars will have been wasted. However, if we fail to develop new infrastructure, and that failure to act results in a developer choosing not to build in Pullman, then we will have damaged ourselves in the process of attempting to be responsible stewards of the public trust. Prioritizing and making certain those projects selected are truly necessary will be critical moving forward.

Because of the method by which water/sewer districts are funded and their self-sufficient nature, re-allocation of general fund dollars for such projects is not commonplace. However, in this time of dramatically decreasing revenues and an economy in crisis, we need to think outside of the box. If allowed by law, there are under-utilized programs in the general budget that can be cut, and those funds can be re-allocated for these water/sewer projects, then those steps should be taken prior to increasing fees to this extent. Government must be held to the same standard as the private citizen, and should be required to use all available funds efficiently.

The primary responsibilities of the City of Pullman are providing our basic infrastructure and emergency services, and providing opportunities for growth. If these projects and improvements are truly necessary, then every home and business - every resident will benefit from them. It is only prudent that tax revenues (and fees) be spent on projects and programs are constantly evaluated to provide maximum benefit to our residents. This situation also further defines the need for a more robust retail sector which can generate the revenue needed for more economically feasible long term development.

Obviously, close scrutiny of this proposal is warranted, and I would encourage all Pullman residents with specific concerns to take an active part in the public review process.

Finally, it is imperative that we address head on the issue of unfunded mandates, which are, by nature, violative of both the United States Constitution as well as the Washington State Constitution, and account for a significant portion of the costs of these projects.

(Full disclosure: I am currently a candidate for Pullman City Council, Ward 1 Position 7)

Jeff Williams, candidate for Pullman City Council, Ward 1, Position 7, has just launched his campaign website (a couple of them actually).  Point your browser to  http://www.commonsensejeff.com or http://www.electjeffwilliams.com.  Please check it out.  Extremely professional and simple, theJeff's web site lays out his positions and allow you to connect, contribute, and get involved with the campaign.